Archive‎ > ‎

2010

EMMSAD 2010 was organized in Hammamet, Tunisia, in June, 2010, in conjunction with CAiSE'10.

The field of information systems analysis and design includes numerous information modeling methods and notations (e.g. ER, ORM, UML, DFDs, BPMN), that are typically evolving. Even with some attempts to standardise (e.g. UML for object-oriented design), new modeling methods are constantly being introduced, many of which differ only marginally from existing approaches. These ongoing changes significantly impact the way information systems are being analyzed and designed in practice. This workshop focuses on exploring, evaluating, and enhancing current information modeling methods and methodologies. Though the need for such studies is well recognized, there is a paucity of such research in the literature. 

The objective of EMMSAD10 was to provide a forum for researchers and practitioners interested in modeling methods in systems analysis and design to meet, and exchange research ideas and results. It also provides the participants an opportunity to present their research papers and experience reports, and to take part in open discussions. EMMSAD10 was the fifteenth in a very successful series of EMMSAD workshops, previously held in Heraklion, Barcelona, Pisa, Heidelberg, Stockholm, Interlaken, Toronto, Velden, Riga, Porto, Luxembourg, Trondheim, Montpellier and Amsterdam. 

This year we had 22 papers submitted by authors from 16 different countries (Australia, Brasil, France, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, Malasia, The Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Tunisia). After an extensive review process by a distinguished international program committee, with each paper receiving at least three re- views, we accepted the 14 papers that appear in these proceedings. Congratulations to the successful authors! 

Apart from the contribution by paper authors, the quality of this workshop depends in no small way on the generous contribution of time and effort by the program committee and the additional reviewers. Their work is greatly appreciated. Continuing with our very successful collaboration with IFIP WG 8.1 that started in 1997, this years workshop is again a joint activity of CAiSE and WG 8.1. The European INTEROP Network of Excellence has also sponsored this workshop since 2005, as has AIS-SIGSAND. 

Acknowledgements

Apart from the contribution by paper authors, the quality of this workshop depends on no small way on the generous contribution of time and effort by the program committee. Their work is greatly appreciated. We also express our sincere thanks to the CAiSE organizing committee, especially the CAiSE Workshop organizers.

Workshop Co-Chairs

  1. Terry Halpin, Northface University, USA
  2. John Krogstie, SINTEF and Norwegian Institute of Science and Technology, Norway
  3. Erik Proper, Public Research Centre Henri Tudor, Luxembourg and Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Workshop Steering Committee

  1. Keng Siau, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, USA
  2. Terry Halpin, Northface University, USA
  3. John Krogstie, SINTEF and Norwegian Institute of Science and Technology, Norway

Accepted papers

  1. Wassim Derguech, Gabriela Vulcu, and Sami Bhiri. An Indexing Structure for Maintaining Configurable Process Models. In I. Bider, T.A. Halpin, J. Krogstie, S. Nurcan, H.A. Proper, R. Schmidt, and R. Ukor, editors, Enterpise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling - 11th International Workshop, BPMDS 2010 and 15th International Conference, EMMSAD 2010, held at CAiSE 2010, Tunis, Tunesia, June 2010, volume 50 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, pages 157-168. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2010. ISBN-13: 9783642130502 doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13051-9_1
    During the business process modeling phase, different envi- ronments and languages have been proposed. All of them are trying to narrow the communication gap between both business and IT users or making modeling task as optimal as possible. From these perspectives, we prioritize assisting business users to express in an efficient and easy way their requirements (i.e., defining their business process models). In this context, reusing existing process models is well supported and pre- ferred rather than modeling from scratch. Configurable business process models aim at merging different process variants into a single config- urable model. In this paper, we define an indexing structure to represent configurable process models. We give a set of structuring principles and we show how to maintain this structure when adding a new variant. We adopt a hierarchical representation of business goals variations. The contribution of our structure is that it allows for modularity handling.
    [Paper]

  2. Sabine Buckl, Florian Matthes, and Christian M. Schweda. A Meta-language for EA Information Modeling - State-of-the-Art and Requirements Elicitation. In I. Bider, T.A. Halpin, J. Krogstie, S. Nurcan, H.A. Proper, R. Schmidt, and R. Ukor, editors, Enterpise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling - 11th International Workshop, BPMDS 2010 and 15th International Conference, EMMSAD 2010, held at CAiSE 2010, Tunis, Tunesia, June 2010, volume 50 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, pages 169-181. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2010. ISBN-13: 9783642130502 doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13051-9_2
    Enterprise architecture (EA) management has not only re- cently gained importance as means to support enterprises in adapting to a changing market environment and in seizing new business opportuni- ties. This twofold role of EA management in transforming enterprises is connected to describing the current state as well as future states of the EA. Although different information models for the description of these states have yet been proposed in literature, no ’standard’ information model exists, and the plurality advocates for the idea that such models are enterprise-specific design artifacts. In this paper, we explore the fundamentals of EA information modeling, namely the meta-languages underlying today’s models, and analyze their diversity. Based on the analysis, we elicit requirements for a ”unifying” meta-language. By showing that multi-purpose modeling facilities, as the OMG’s UML, fail to fully satisfy these requirements, we establish a future field of research – a meta-language for EA information modeling.
    [Paper]

  3. J. Groenewegen, S.J.B.A. Hoppenbrouwers, and H.A. Proper. Playing ArchiMate Models. In I. Bider, T.A. Halpin, J. Krogstie, S. Nurcan, H.A. Proper, R. Schmidt, and R. Ukor, editors, Enterpise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling - 11th International Workshop, BPMDS 2010 and 15th International Conference, EMMSAD 2010, held at CAiSE 2010, Tunis, Tunesia, June 2010, volume 50 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, pages 182-194. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2010. ISBN-13: 9783642130502 doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13051-9_3

    This paper concerns the application of a gaming approach to the validation of ArchiMate models, with the aim of enhancing validation, by non- architects, beyond mere reading of the model. The game offers a guided process for systematic exploration of ArchiMate models, and for systematically raising questions about them. The development process and the design principles behind the game are discussed, as well as the information transformation involved in creating a model-specific game from an ArchiMate model. The game has been evaluated through application in a small real life case. We discuss the influence of our approach to model understanding by the players, and the conceptual merits and flaws of the game.
    [Paper]

  4. Jenny Abramov and Arnon Sturm. Supporting Layered Architecture Specifications: A Domain Modeling Approach. In I. Bider, T.A. Halpin, J. Krogstie, S. Nurcan, H.A. Proper, R. Schmidt, and R. Ukor, editors, Enterpise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling - 11th International Workshop, BPMDS 2010 and 15th International Conference, EMMSAD 2010, held at CAiSE 2010, Tunis, Tunesia, June 2010, volume 50 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, pages 195-207. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2010. ISBN-13: 9783642130502 doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13051-9_4
    Software architectural patterns help manage complexity through abstraction and separation of concerns. The most commonly used architectural patterns are layered architectures, which benefit from modularity and reuse of layers. However, they lack in supporting changes, as there is a need to do a substantial amount of rework on the layers in order to incorporate changes. Furthermore, the comprehension of specifications which are based on a layered architecture can be difficult. In order to address the aforementioned limitations, we adopt a domain engineering approach called Application-based Domain Modeling (ADOM). Using ADOM, we refer to each layer as a separate domain model, whose elements are used to classify the application model elements. Consequently, the application model is represented in a unified form, which incorporates information from all of the layers. This allows performing changes in the model, without creating cascades of changes among the layers‟ models in order to synchronize them.
    [Paper]

  5. Manel Jelliti, Michelle Sibilla, Yassine Jamoussi, and Henda Hajjami Ben Ghézala. A Model Based Framework Supporting ITIL Service IT Management. In I. Bider, T.A. Halpin, J. Krogstie, S. Nurcan, H.A. Proper, R. Schmidt, and R. Ukor, editors, Enterpise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling - 11th International Workshop, BPMDS 2010 and 15th International Conference, EMMSAD 2010, held at CAiSE 2010, Tunis, Tunesia, June 2010, volume 50 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, pages 208-219. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2010. ISBN-13: 9783642130502 doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13051-9_5
    The implementation of an adequate business management system for information technologies (IT) requires recognition of business needs, current level of maintenance, better insights into available approaches and tools, as well as their interoperability and integration. The approach we are proposing in this topic aims the reusing and the extension of CIM (Common Informational Model), a standard Model in System Management domain, for designing the ITIL (Information Technology Infrastructure Library) processes. According to ITIL, the CMDB (Configuration Management Database) forms the basis for effective and efficient IT Service Management. We will present how core processes correlate to each other and point out the challenge of setting up a CMDB. We also present the key requirements for designing CMDB with using the MDA (Model Driven Architecture) approach and focus in the PIM (Platform Independent Model) phase. In order to ensure a well-founded business management of ITIL CMDB and the different dependencies between processes, a static view must be provided with a behavior view. Our approach of the behavior modeling is based upon the integration of statechart diagrams UML2.0 in the CIM model.
    [Paper]

  6. Lillian Hella and John Krogstie. A Structured Evaluation to Assess the Reusability of Models of User Profiles. In I. Bider, T.A. Halpin, J. Krogstie, S. Nurcan, H.A. Proper, R. Schmidt, and R. Ukor, editors, Enterpise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling - 11th International Workshop, BPMDS 2010 and 15th International Conference, EMMSAD 2010, held at CAiSE 2010, Tunis, Tunesia, June 2010, volume 50 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, pages 220-233. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2010. ISBN-13: 9783642130502 doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13051-9_6
    In the creation of an adaptive mobile personalisation system it is useful to investigate whether existing models are applicable. Such models are usually structured as ontologies. We view existing ontologies from a reuse perspective, and have chosen to specialise the SEQUAL quality framework for evaluation of existing models. SEQUAL has previously been used for the evaluation of modelling languages and approaches, including the evaluation of ontologies. Using the semiotic quality categories in SEQUAL, an evaluation has been made of potential ontologies. The result of the evaluation is that none of the evaluated ontologies satisfies requirements as models that can be reused or built on, and the profile ontology has been created from scratch.
    [Paper]

  7. Niklas Melleg\aard and Miroslaw Staron. Distribution of Effort among Software Development Artefacts: An Initial Case Study. In I. Bider, T.A. Halpin, J. Krogstie, S. Nurcan, H.A. Proper, R. Schmidt, and R. Ukor, editors, Enterpise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling - 11th International Workshop, BPMDS 2010 and 15th International Conference, EMMSAD 2010, held at CAiSE 2010, Tunis, Tunesia, June 2010, volume 50 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, pages 234-246. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2010. ISBN-13: 9783642130502 doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13051-9_7
    Model-driven development aims at increasing productivity by raising the abstraction level of software specifications and introducing automated transformations for replacing lower level specifications. To assess benefits of replacing a legacy development process with a model-driven approach, one needs to establish a baseline of the current process with respect to the effort invested in the development artefacts. In this paper we report on an initial case study in which we investigate the main artefacts in the analysis and design phase with respect to required effort and perceived importance. We studied a non-model driven development of software based automotive functionality and our initial results show that a few artefacts receive the majority of effort, and that the artefacts that receive the most effort are not the most important ones. The initial results indicate that the distribution of effort between models and other artefacts is similar to that of model-driven projects in spite of the project being perceived and characterized as code-centric.
    [Paper]

  8. Terry A. Halpin and Jan Pieter Wijbenga. FORML 2. In I. Bider, T.A. Halpin, J. Krogstie, S. Nurcan, H.A. Proper, R. Schmidt, and R. Ukor, editors, Enterpise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling - 11th International Workshop, BPMDS 2010 and 15th International Conference, EMMSAD 2010, held at CAiSE 2010, Tunis, Tunesia, June 2010, volume 50 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, pages 247-260. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2010. ISBN-13: 9783642130502 doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13051-9_8
    A conceptual schema of an information system specifies the fact structures of interest as well as the business rules that apply to the business do- main being modeled. These rules, which may be complex, are best validated with subject matter experts, since they best understand the business domain. In practice, business domain experts often lack expertise in the technical languages used by modelers to capture or query the information model. Controlled natural languages offer a potential solution to this problem, by allowing business ex- perts to validate models and queries expressed in language they understand, while still being executable, with automated generation of implementation code. This paper describes FORML 2, a controlled natural language based on ORM 2 (second generation Object-Role Modeling), featuring rich expressive power, intelligibility, and semantic stability. Design guidelines are discussed, as well as a prototype implemented as an extension to the open source NORMA (Natural ORM Architect) tool.
    [Paper]

  9. Nuno Amálio, Pierre Kelsen, and Qin Ma. Specifying Structural Properties and Their Constraints Formally and Visually and Modularly Using VCL. In I. Bider, T.A. Halpin, J. Krogstie, S. Nurcan, H.A. Proper, R. Schmidt, and R. Ukor, editors, Enterpise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling - 11th International Workshop, BPMDS 2010 and 15th International Conference, EMMSAD 2010, held at CAiSE 2010, Tunis, Tunesia, June 2010, volume 50 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, pages 261-273. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2010. ISBN-13: 9783642130502 doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13051-9_9
    The value of visual representations in software engineering is widely recognised. This paper addresses the problem of formality and rigour in visual-based descriptions of software systems. It proposes a new language, VCL, designed to be visual, formal and modular, tar- geting abstract specification at level of requirements, and that aims at expressing visually what is not visually expressible using mainstream vi- sual languages, such as UML. This paper presents and illustrates VCL’s approach to structural modelling based on the VCL notations of struc- tural and constraint diagrams with a case study. VCL’s contributions lie in its modularity mechanisms, and the support for two alternative styles of visual constraint modelling (one closer to set theory expressions and based on Euler diagrams, the other closer to predicate calculus and based on object graphs).
    [Paper]

  10. Emanuel Santos, João Pimentel, Jaelson Castro, Juan Sánchez, and Oscar Pastor. Configuring the Variability of Business Process Models Using Non-Functional Requirements. In I. Bider, T.A. Halpin, J. Krogstie, S. Nurcan, H.A. Proper, R. Schmidt, and R. Ukor, editors, Enterpise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling - 11th International Workshop, BPMDS 2010 and 15th International Conference, EMMSAD 2010, held at CAiSE 2010, Tunis, Tunesia, June 2010, volume 50 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, pages 274-286. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2010. ISBN-13: 9783642130502 doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13051-9_10
    The existence of variations in the organizational environment makes the configuration of business process models a complex activity, even for experienced business analysts. The increasing adoption of busi- ness processes models by software engineers as a input for requirements analysis strengthens the importance of adressing this issue. The challenge is to configure business processes to fit the organization better. We pro- pose an approach that combines variability analysis and non-functional requirements to drive the configuration of a business process. Applying this approach we can analyze variability in the model in order to as- sess the impact of the choices on the process quality constraints - the non-functional requirements. Moreover, it provides a rationale for the selection of a specific configuration.
    [Paper]

  11. Mturi Elias, Khurram Shahzad, and Paul Johannesson. A Business Process Metadata Model for a Process Model Repository. In I. Bider, T.A. Halpin, J. Krogstie, S. Nurcan, H.A. Proper, R. Schmidt, and R. Ukor, editors, Enterpise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling - 11th International Workshop, BPMDS 2010 and 15th International Conference, EMMSAD 2010, held at CAiSE 2010, Tunis, Tunesia, June 2010, volume 50 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, pages 287-300. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2010. ISBN-13: 9783642130502 doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13051-9_11
    Today reuse of business process models is becoming increasingly important. One of the proven solutions for reusing business process models is the use of repositories. Repositories should have process models and process metadata that can help users in searching, understanding, and interpreting process models. The purpose of this paper is to propose a Business Process Metadata Model (BPMM) that would facilitate a) locating process models, b) understanding and/or interpreting process models, and c) navigating a process model repository. In order to evaluate the BPMM, an empirical study is conducted to measure consistency and correctness of annotating business processes by using BPMM.
    [Paper]

  12. Ilona Wilmont, Sjaak Brinkkemper, Inge van de Weerd, and Stijn Hoppenbrouwers. Exploring Intuitive Modelling Behaviour. In I. Bider, T.A. Halpin, J. Krogstie, S. Nurcan, H.A. Proper, R. Schmidt, and R. Ukor, editors, Enterpise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling - 11th International Workshop, BPMDS 2010 and 15th International Conference, EMMSAD 2010, held at CAiSE 2010, Tunis, Tunesia, June 2010, volume 50 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, pages 301-313. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2010. ISBN-13: 9783642130502 doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13051-9_12
    Understanding modelling behaviour is an important step to- wards situated modelling support, especially when aiming to actively involve the domain expert in modelling without expert interventions. In search for a hypothesis on which modelling acts humans exhibit naturally, this paper presents an exploratory study into the modelling approaches intuitively taken by people trained in modelling as opposed to people not trained in modelling. Participants were asked to create a concept map of either a familiar or unfamiliar knowledge domain. Analysis shows that there are differences between the approaches novice and expert modellers follow, the decisions they make in representing an aspect or not, and the level of abstraction they choose.
    [Paper]

  13. Ajantha Dahanayake and Bernhard Thalheim. Co-evolution of (Information) System Models. In I. Bider, T.A. Halpin, J. Krogstie, S. Nurcan, H.A. Proper, R. Schmidt, and R. Ukor, editors, Enterpise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling - 11th International Workshop, BPMDS 2010 and 15th International Conference, EMMSAD 2010, held at CAiSE 2010, Tunis, Tunesia, June 2010, volume 50 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, pages 314-326. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2010. ISBN-13: 9783642130502 doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13051-9_13
    Information systems’ modelling is based on separation of concern such as separation into facets or viewpoints on the application domain from one side and separation of aspects (structuring, functionality, interactivity, distribu- tion, architectural components) from the other side. Facets and aspects are typi- cally specified through different models that must be harmonised and made co- herent. Such varieties of models are difficult to handle, to evolve, to maintain and to use. Most design methodologies adopt the master-slave principle in or- der to handle the coherence of such model assemblies by assigning one model to be the master and mapping the master to slave models. Moreover, these mod- els diagrams are typically not developed from scratch. They are incrementally completed step by step depending on the modelling methodology. Models evolve during development and are not independent, are interrelated, and in most appli- cations also intertwined. Their interrelationships are often not made explicit and impose changes resulting in inconsistencies to other models due to the variety of models. Therefore, this paper introduces the theory of model suites as a set of models with explicit associations among the models. Model suites are based on explicit controllers for maintenance of coherence, apply application schemata for their explicit maintenance and evolution, use tracers for establishment of their coher- ence and thus support co-evolution of information system models. The excitabil- ity is captured by integrating model suites and MetaCASE formalisms, exploring the (modelling) method engineering and tool generation required for multi-model development.
    [Paper]

  14. Rébecca Deneckère and Elena Kornyshova. Process Line Configuration: An Indicator-Based Guidance of the Intentional Model MAP. In I. Bider, T.A. Halpin, J. Krogstie, S. Nurcan, H.A. Proper, R. Schmidt, and R. Ukor, editors, Enterpise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling - 11th International Workshop, BPMDS 2010 and 15th International Conference, EMMSAD 2010, held at CAiSE 2010, Tunis, Tunesia, June 2010, volume 50 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, pages 327-339. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 2010. ISBN-13: 9783642130502 doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13051-9_14
    Variability has proved to be a central concept in different engineering domains to develop solutions that can be easily adapted to different organizational settings and different sets of customers at a low price. The MAP formalism has a high level of variability as it is expressed in an intentional manner through goals and strategies. However, a high level of variability means a high number of variation points. A process customization is then required to offer a better guidance. The Product lines have appeared with this management of variability and customization. Furthermore, we propose the Process line concept to represent the processes that may be customized to a given project. Our goal is to enhance the Map guidance by specifying the MIG (Map Indicator-based Guidance) approach. We suggest several guidance approaches based on an indicators’ typology. We illustrate our proposal with an example from the requirement engineering field.
    [Paper]

Program Committee

  1. Eric Dubois, Centre Henri Tudor, Luxembourg
  2. Florian Matthes, Technical University Munich, Germany
  3. Mathias Ekstedt, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
  4. Pontus Johnson, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
  5. Antonia Albani, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland
  6. Sietse Overbeek, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
  7. Bas van Gils, BiZZdesign, The Netherlands
  8. Annie Becker, Florida Institute of Technology, United States of America
  9. Giuseppe Berio, University of Torino, Italy
  10. Nacer Boudjlida, UHP Nancy 1/Loria, France
  11. Inge van de Weerd, Utrecht University, The Netherlands
  12. Andy Carver, Carver Consulting, United States of America
  13. Olga De Troyer, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium
  14. John Erickson, University of Nebraska-Omaha, United States of America
  15. Peter Fettke, Institute for Information Systems, DFKI, Germany
  16. Ulrich Frank, University of Duisberg-Essen, Germany
  17. Andrew Gemino, Simon Fraser University, Canada
  18. Gøran Goldkuhl, Linkøping University, Sweden
  19. Remigijus Gustas, Karlstad University, Sweden
  20. Frank Harmsen, Ernst & Young and Maastricht University, The Netherlands
  21. Wolfgang Hesse, Philipps - University Marburg, Germany
  22. Stijn Hoppenbrouwers, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands
  23. Jon Iden, Norges Handelshøyskole, Bergen, Norway
  24. Paul Johanneson, Stockholm University, Sweden
  25. Pericles Loucopoulos, Loughborough University, United Kingdom
  26. Graham McLeod, Promis Solutions, Switzerland
  27. Jan Mendling, Humboldt-Universita ̈t zu Berlin, Germany
  28. Tony Morgan, Neumont University, United States of America
  29. Michele Missikoff, LEKS, IASI, Italy
  30. Andreas L. Opdahl, University of Bergen, Norway
  31. Hervé Panetto, France, University Henri Poincaré Nancy I, France
  32. Barbara Pernici, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
  33. Anne Persson, University of Sko ̈vde, Sweden
  34. Michaél Petit, University of Namur, Belgium
  35. Jolita Ralyté, University of Geneva, Switzerland
  36. Sudha Ram, University of Arizona, United States of America
  37. Jan Recker, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
  38. Colette Rolland, University of Paris 1, France
  39. Michael Rosemann, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
  40. Matti Rossi, Helsinki School of Economics, Finland
  41. Kurt Sandkuhl, Jönköping University, Sweden
  42. Peretz Shoval, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel
  43. Il-Yeol Song, Drexel University, United States of America
  44. Janis Stirna, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
  45. Johan Versendaal, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands 
  46. Carson Woo, University of British Columbia, Canada 
  47. Martin Zelm, CIMOSA, Germany
  48. Pär Ågerfalk, Sweden, Uppsala University, Sweden

    Additional reviewers for EMMSAD 2010

      1. Alexis Aubry 
      2. Markus Buschle 
      3. Ulrik Franke
      4. Jens Gulden 
      5. Marijke Janssen 
      6. Heiko Kattenstroth 
      7. Robert Lagerström 
      8. Francesco Taglino 
      9. Esma Yahia